Glen Gordon wrote:
>it's only another small step to concluding
that a giant woman must have given birth to all life, all creation itself
because the female form can be taken as a symbol of birth.
>This concept while bizarre and trite in the modern world is based on
understandable reasoning. It also explains the meaning behind many
Goddess figurines showing a plump naked lady with big birthing hips,
sometimes even in the process of giving birth.
As you say, some of these figures are depicted in the process of giving
birth. However, from the medical point of view, plump ladies might not
necessarily be the best equipped for this biological task. I once showed a
picture of one of these figures - the Venus of Willendorf, IIRC - to a
doctor, and asked him what his opinion would have been had this lady
presented herself at his surgery. He said that her blood-pressure would
have given him cause for concern, and it was also possible that her weight
might make her arthritic. Given these conditions, pregnancy might be rather
difficult. Finally, it was impossible to tell whether the figurine itself
was supposed to be pregnant - as my doctor friend put it, there might be
anything under all those rolls of flesh. However, he did add that perhaps
the fat might be indicative of someone who had in the past given birth to
several children.
Nevertheless, given that the societies that produced these figurines were
supposed to be hunter-gatherers and so forth, out on their feet all day
long, how could anyone, even someone who might have given birth to several
children, have put on so much weight?
And, finally, how do we know that the figurines were supposed to be divine?
How do we know that they weren't just representations of very overweight
females?
Jean Kelly